rated by 0 users

This post has
6
Replies |
2
Followers

Libertarians often get caught up in internet debates which test both their knowledge and their rhetoric. An unfortunate truth is that the task of proving liberty is volumetrically larger than that of defend the state – you have to show in-depth knowledge on why all the different government interventions have to be stripped away, while the opponent can wave a magic wand and claim that government will solve a problem. The libertarian, then, has to be well-versed in economics, history, and philosophy, while the opposition can say that we just need to “elect the right people into power.” I’d like to let you in on a public secret: The Socratic Method.

Seems like this guy has discovered how to never lose a debate again. Also says that you can actually convert people. I don't know what you guys think, but this man's a genius. Read it! NOW!

In my experience, I believe that the Socratic method only works with individuals who are willing to cooperate with me and who share my same sense of logic. I estimate that this is between 10% and 40% of the people with whom I interact.

Seems like this guy has discovered how to never lose a debate again. Also says that you can actually convert people. I don't know what you guys think, but this man's a genius. Read it! NOW!

It's not possible to win every debate since this would require you to know something about every middle term of every argument, and this requires that you know everything. Of course it occurs to me that if you could reduce everyone's reasons down to a few reasons you DO know, you would be able to win, however that is generally impractical since not every statement is connected w/each other statement (an argument about logic won't spill over into an argument over aesthetics).

Statists and everyone in general should realize that they will, even in possibility if not in practice, lose at least one debate.

The only thing one needs to know about debates is when to "shake the dust from your feet" and move on.